IRC log of xproc on 2010-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:11:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
08:11:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:11:52 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
08:11:52 [Norm]
Date: 4 November 2010
08:11:52 [Norm]
08:11:52 [Norm]
Meeting: 183
08:11:52 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
08:11:53 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
08:11:55 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
08:12:03 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Alex
08:12:09 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Alex, Forent
08:12:11 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Alex, Florent
08:12:21 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry, Paul, Jeni
08:13:06 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
08:13:32 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
08:13:32 [Norm]
08:14:46 [Norm]
Henry can call in between 16:15 and 17:00, so we'll move review of processor profiles to the end of the day
08:14:59 [Norm]
08:15:05 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
08:15:05 [Norm]
08:15:12 [Norm]
08:15:29 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon, 18 Nov 2010?
08:15:32 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
08:16:00 [fgeorges]
fgeorges has joined #xproc
08:16:09 [Norm]
Topic: Review of proposed XProc errata
08:16:30 [Norm]
08:16:46 [Norm]
(We've got things mixed together on the issues list; Norm will fix that later)
08:18:54 [Norm]
Topic: Allow p:xslt to produce an empty sequence?
08:28:22 [Norm]
Vojtech: It would require all implementations to change.
08:28:25 [Norm]
Alex: It is annoying.
08:28:33 [Norm]
More discussion...
08:28:43 [Norm]
Norm: I don't hear consensus to make the change as an erratum.
08:31:24 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think it's an uncommon problem, and the folks who encounter it, the ones using xsl:result-document, are probably able to work around it.
08:31:45 [Norm]
...It might be more confusing for users with simpler stylesheets to understand why it's a sequence.
08:32:03 [Norm]
Proposal: No change to the spec, the test suite has already been updated by Vojtech.
08:32:15 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
08:32:29 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
08:35:06 [Norm]
08:37:43 [Norm]
Topic: xml:id processing in XProc
08:38:24 [Norm]
Mohamed: We only say "may" in the spec, so I don't think we can say that xml:id processing is mandatory.
08:38:32 [Norm]
Vojtech: But the revised profiles document makes it explicit.
08:40:12 [Norm]
Mohamed: We don't have xml:id in the implementation-defined features list.
08:40:18 [Norm]
Norm: I think we need to do that as an erratum.
08:40:32 [Norm]
Norm: I just don't think we can change "may" to "must" in an erratum.
08:40:48 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to draft an erratum to add xml:id to the implementation-defined features list.
08:43:46 [Norm]
Alex: If you were going to make xml:id required, you'd have to say it was performed on all the inputs where ever they came from, on p:document, on p:inline, and on the outputs of all steps.
08:43:57 [Norm]
...Should we say that in the spec as part of the erratum, explaining why xml:id was left as "may"?
08:45:18 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I'll try to do that when I add the text to make xml:id implementation-defined
08:45:43 [Norm]
Proposal: No technical changes, just clarify that xml:id is an implementation-defined feature
08:45:50 [Norm]
08:47:40 [Norm]
Topic: Shouldn't choose report err:XD0026 too?
08:48:21 [Norm]
08:49:07 [Norm]
Norm: this looks like a straight-up erratum to me
08:49:16 [Norm]
Sounds of general agreement
08:51:14 [Norm]
Proposal: Fix the prose for p:xpath-context to make it clear that err:XD0026 should be raised there too.
08:51:25 [Norm]
08:51:35 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to propose an erratum to fix p:xpath-context
08:56:34 [Norm]
Topic: New and upcoming XProc implementations
08:56:40 [Norm]
(Topic suggested by Mohamed)
08:58:34 [Norm]
General discussion: Tubular submitted test suite results recently. There's a .NET implementation in the works from Oliver H. Vojtech knows of another Java implementation that's coming.
08:58:57 [Norm]
Mohamed: We should update the public XProc page too.
08:59:03 [Norm]
Norm: Yes. Want to take a stab at it?
08:59:19 [Norm]
ACTION: Mohamed to propose new text for the public XProc page.
09:11:46 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
09:41:46 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
09:41:54 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
09:43:17 [fgeorges]
fgeorges has joined #xproc
09:47:57 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
09:55:45 [Norm]
Topic: Simplified template step
09:55:53 [Norm]
Mohamed: You can do it with XSLT
09:56:08 [Norm]
Some exploration of how XSLT Simplified Stylesheets work
10:22:24 [Norm]
Much discussion...
10:22:43 [Norm]
Alex: Are some of these things really just syntactic sugar that you could implement by translating to some equivalent 1.0 pipelien?
10:22:47 [Norm]
10:34:51 [Liam]
Liam has joined #xproc
10:40:52 [Liam]
Liam has joined #xproc
11:05:49 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
12:56:56 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
13:01:35 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
13:08:09 [fgeorges]
fgeorges has joined #xproc
13:18:48 [Liam]
Liam has joined #xproc
13:20:52 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
13:24:05 [Norm]
Topic: Charter for XProc
13:24:37 [Norm]
Norm: What should we do next? Fold up our tents and go home or do more work?
13:25:15 [Norm]
Liam: The XML Activity has a charter, as do the individual working groups. They all expire in January. This is normal, it's a chance for the membership to review activities.
13:26:06 [Norm]
Liam outlines the process.
13:35:15 [Norm]
Some discussion of 1 or 2 year charters; a 2 year charter implying XProc 2.0 work.
13:35:37 [Norm]
Norm: We have two implementations and reports of as many as four or five more in the works.
13:36:13 [Norm]
...I think I'd like a 1 year charter for maintenance and possible requirements gathering, then after a year see where we are.
13:36:56 [Norm]
Liam: I'd like to be able to consider pipelines, with synchronization points, as a possible solution for more complex processing requirements
13:37:05 [Norm]
...For example, as an alternative to XQuery Scripting Extensions.
13:39:30 [Norm]
Norm: I'd be happy with a charter that broadly spoke of maintenance and possible requirements gathering with some explicit discussion of interaction with other working groups to consider possible cooperative activities.
13:56:50 [Liam]
Liam has joined #xproc
14:26:46 [fgeorges]
14:29:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xproc
14:29:17 [caribou]
zakim, room for 2?
14:29:19 [Zakim]
ok, caribou; conference Team_(xproc)14:29Z scheduled with code 26635 (CONF5) for 60 minutes until 1529Z
14:29:28 [caribou]
zakim, call Rhone_4
14:29:28 [Zakim]
ok, caribou; the call is being made
14:29:30 [Zakim]
Team_(xproc)14:29Z has now started
14:29:50 [Zakim]
Team_(xproc)14:29Z has ended
14:29:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were
15:10:55 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:10:55 [RRSAgent]
15:11:04 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:11:43 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer
15:11:43 [RRSAgent]
15:13:04 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:13:16 [ht]
zakim, code?
15:13:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26635 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), ht
15:13:43 [Norm]
Hello ht! ;-)
15:13:44 [caribou]
zakim, call Rhone_4
15:13:44 [Zakim]
ok, caribou; the call is being made
15:13:45 [Zakim]
Team_(xproc)14:29Z has now started
15:13:53 [ht]
Afternoon norm
15:13:57 [ht]
dialing . . .
15:15:16 [Norm]
ugh. want to use skype to a computer instead?
15:15:20 [caribou]
can't you get zakim to call you?
15:15:38 [ht]
Not team anymore :-(
15:16:40 [Norm]
we can't here you
15:16:55 [Norm]
we can't hear you either
15:16:57 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:17:17 [Norm]
we may end up with skype as the only option. Carine has gone to look for a better phone
15:18:21 [ht]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
15:18:32 [ht]
This is weird
15:18:43 [ht]
I can hear you guys
15:18:49 [ht]
but zakim doesn't know we're here???
15:19:03 [Norm]
zakim, this is xproc
15:19:03 [Zakim]
Norm, this was already Team_(xproc)14:29Z
15:19:04 [ht]
You can re-tell what I type
15:19:05 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; that matches Team_(xproc)14:29Z
15:19:13 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:19:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
15:19:37 [caribou]
zakim, this is conf5
15:19:37 [Zakim]
caribou, this was already Team_(xproc)14:29Z
15:19:38 [Zakim]
ok, caribou; that matches Team_(xproc)14:29Z
15:20:46 [ht]
I'm very happy with that outcome
15:20:54 [Norm]
Topic: XML processor profiles
15:21:05 [ht]
I will help if we can actually figure out a ToC for the proposed additional doc't
15:21:22 [Norm]
Norm: I think we're in good shape. I like the document. I discussed it informally with the TAG over lunch.
15:21:29 [ht]
I remain unconvinced that there is a coherent topic short of a PhD thesis is scope
15:21:44 [ht]
s/is scope/in scope/
15:21:55 [Norm]
...There's still a desire to have a document that says more along the lines of "XML Functions", but it doesn't have to be this document and it doesn't have to be a normative product of this WG.
15:21:59 [ht]
zakim, who is present?
15:21:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ht.
15:22:01 [Norm]
...I agreed that I'd work on such a document.
15:22:46 [ht]
I did look
15:23:01 [ht]
I believe all are closed
15:23:11 [ht]
That is 1, 3 (optimistically)
15:23:20 [ht]
Yes, it says it's impl defined
15:23:30 [ht]
David may not like that
15:23:42 [ht]
You are now too far from the mike
15:26:56 [Zakim]
Team_(xproc)14:29Z has ended
15:26:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were
15:30:32 [Norm]
Norm: Next steps: clean up the typo, republish as a Last Call with an explicit note that we plan to go directly from LC to PR. Explicitly ask David and Bjorn if they're content with the resolutions.
15:30:39 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to produce such a Last Call draft.
15:30:59 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to close the issues on the DoC that we believe are resolved.
15:34:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate caribou
15:39:15 [caribou]
Present+ Moz, Carine
15:39:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate caribou
15:40:01 [caribou]
Present+ Henry (on the phone)
15:49:23 [Norm]
ACTION: Mohamed to write up a proposal for p:iterate (along the lines of xsl:iterate from XSL 2.1)
15:55:33 [Norm]
topic: Iteration
15:58:48 [Norm]
Some discussion of the XML Calabash "iterate-to-fixed-point" step.
15:59:55 [Norm]
Alex points out that his use case, combining the entries of a paginated Atom feed into a single feed isn't well-served by this step.
16:00:13 [Norm]
Mohamed suggested that the p:iterate step will provide a way to do the pagination use case easily.
16:00:23 [Norm]
Florent observes that if you have p:iterate you can implement fixed-point iteration with it.
16:08:00 [Norm]
Mohamed: The p:iterate step will iterate over a sequence, but if the fixed-point case is a useful case, then we can probably make that work.
16:09:30 [Norm]
Topics: More future step possibilities
16:10:00 [Norm]
Norm: We can't add new compound steps until, but there are some we could write up as possibilities
16:17:58 [alexmilowski]
16:18:12 [alexmilowski]
We decided not to do this in V1
16:18:21 [alexmilowski]
Record here:
16:18:30 [alexmilowski]
...but only indirectly
16:25:41 [Norm]
Some discussion of the restriction on where p:variables can appear. We successfully convinced ourselves that we needed the restriction :-)
16:31:45 [Norm]
Some discussion of dependencies
16:32:06 [Norm]
It might be nice to have a partition element that simply ensures that all of the steps in one partition run before/after all the ones in another partition
16:34:40 [Norm]
rrsagent, set log world-visible
16:34:45 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:34:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:25:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc